Comments

This shit is getting way too crazy. With the addition of making money from this stuff I see no end in sight. If all you have to do is accuse the “hive mind” of attacking you even though they don’t know/care who you are before you start accusing them of stuff and you will get a ton more hits on your videos…well I can see why people would take advantage of that. It doesn’t speak well of them at all but I can see the appeal. Also, if you can deceive your audience into feeling sorry for you and throwing you a few hundred bucks for being a chill girl, hey oh! Cha ching.
I thought it was feminists who were always playing the victim card? Strange.

Well, feminists DO play the victim card. Like, when they talk about sexual violence, or equal pay. All just babbling nonsense and playing the victim card. Not like there’s mountains of evidence! no no!

But bigots? Well, see, whenever they randomly make up shit about “hiveminds” or “bullying” its automatically true and real and a Major Problem! nevermind they have to lie in order to make those statements. They’re the REAL VICTIMS!

That’s not just a tactic feminists use, crying bullying and sexual harassment to get attention and make people feel sorry for them. It’s become a defense mechanism to divert attention off of the individual making the claims/accusation and onto the person/persons they perceive as a threat. Like when someone claims you are stalking/raped them or sexually harassed them for by talking to them in an elevator (wtf?) This strategy of using loaded words such as sexual harassment, stalking, raping, blah blah blah as a selling point is retarded but not as retarded as the people who fall for it, EVERYTIME!

Christina, you are the only blogger I can stomach on FTB anymore, please don’t ruin it by partaking in drama.

Like when someone claims you are stalking/raped them or sexually harassed them for by talking to them in an elevator

This strategy of using loaded words such as sexual harassment, stalking, raping, blah blah blah as a selling point is retarded but not as retarded as the people who fall for it, EVERYTIME!

How about when someone joins in with others who’ve spent over a year deliberately, blatantly lying about an incident to people who know they are lying?

How about when someone is so determined to stir shit that the only contribution they make it to repeat pathetic lies not even CARING that the people they are lying to know it’s a lie, all to create drama that they dishonestly, immorally claim to dislike while blaming that the very people they are lying to and about for the drama that they, the liar themselves, deliberately created?

What do you think about THAT, Priscilla?
Wait, I know already – you think it’s a great hobby.

Also, what do you think of people who use a disability as a slur?

PP, if you have anything to say that is not a deliberate hypocritical lie, or at least not an ableist insult now would be the time to say it.

I enjoyed the video. As a sidenote, why do so many Vloggers talk in such an annoying, stilted style? Not you, I like your style but GWW…ugh. Feels so unnatural. It’s like they’re trying to be super-authoritarian.

Maybe this is wading into the conspiracy weeds (although I don’t think that this concept of trolling is ever that outlandish..this is one of the original flavors actually) but what about the possibility that this is a joe job/false flag scenario, where the DMCA reports were put up to actually create strife and conflict? I don’t see this as being more out there than the concept of sockpuppetry..in reality it’s just a different form, and we know that happens from time to time.

For what it’s worth I do think that a lot of what’s gone on over the last year or so is due to a relatively small number of trolls working really hard to inflame things (with substantial success) for whatever reason..my guess is a combination self-rightousness and personal entertainment. So I see these DMCA “attacks” as more of the same.

congratulations. you’ve completely distorted the actual way that conversation went. from the very beginning, it was said that if the author of a lecture-like video is against transcribing, the video will not be transcribed. The one exception mentioned was when one participant in a discussion with multiple people doesn’t agree, while the other people do agree, then according to Canadian law it would still be ok to transcribe it because in that case accessibility would trump a single participant’s desire.

Your eyed did deceive you (and Anna Johnstone)… when you read Greta’s thread.

In his first post there Trinioler said:

If someone doesn’t want their work transcribed, we won’t do so. This would be quite unfortunate.

He then went on to carve an exception (I don’t know if he still hold to that) and a lot of people (including you apparently) took that exception to be the rule.

Personally I would prefer to not transcribe a participant in a debate that does not want to be transcribed but instead to sum up their point (which is legal under fair use, imagine if you had to criticise somebody’s position without summing it up) and let people know that it is a summing up of course. But that’s my preference, nothing more.

The reality of GirlWritesWhat is that I doubt anyone here had ever heard about her before she started making bullshit comments about her. Further, if she doesn’t make hating FtB and Skepchick.org her main reason for living, we’ll all move on to other things by tomorrow.

People like this are sure we care about them. When nobody actually cares about them, they start screaming at us until we do, and then they retroactively justify the screaming by the response they eventually get.

To be fair, I clearly remember having encountered her channel before and having watched at least several minutes of her videos. Mind you, I don’t remember anything else from them, but she does meet the minimum standard of having been heard of by a random lurker from FtB.

And then I wandered off because her videos weren’t actually interesting.

This is brilliant. I’ve heard one of those videos about DMCA and read that bit where she defends domestic abuse before. It was more than enough for me. I thought I couldn’t be any more disgusted, but seeing all this… Wow.

That woman really has no shame. She lies and lies badly. I can at least admire a good liar, but shit she’s making up is really obvious.

Thanks for this thorough takedown of her arguments. I’m afraid I’d get alcohol poisoning from all the self-medicating if I were forced to slog through her videos.

Wow, I had wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, having only noticed you on pharyngeal this morning, but they are totally right about you. No hell below us, sure. Lately it is the assholes among us that concern me. Content based video, comment on the outfit? Really? You are a prick. Go away.

GWW is no Camille Paglia, Esther Vilar or Christina Hoff Sommers, I’ll say that much.
I think that, considering the movements at large( the feminist and the mra/mrm/whatever acronym they use), both sides have good points and not so good points, extremists and reasonables.

Why can’t we all just get along in our limited time on this earth, that’s the ultimate question…

The part about whether women truly owned their sexuality in a patriarchy is only a part of what’s wrong with this argument from economics. The thing that struck me immediately is that economics isn’t based on surplus primarily, but scarcity. Air is vital to our lives, and we have it in surplus, but that doesn’t mean we ever trade it. Gold isn’t necessary for anything (at least for most of human history it wasn’t; it’s used as a conducting material now), but it’s formed the core of economic systems solely because of its scarcity. (Some people like how it looks, but you can replicate its appearance with iron pyrite, which is much more common and less valuable.)

In the context of a transaction over sexuality, one could make the argument that a woman’s reproductive capabilities are valuable because they’re significantly scarcer than a man’s reproductive capabilities. A fertile woman can have at most one child per nine months. A fertile man can have one child for every fertile non-pregnant woman he can sleep with. Women’s reproductive abilities are scarce, so they’re what was bought and sold.

Of course, at this point it comes back to whether or not a woman owns her own reproductive capabilities. In a patriarchal society, they don’t. In an egalitarian society, they probably do. I don’t know enough on the matter to speculate on how this came about, though, so I’ll leave it there for others to fill in or not.

Just a nit-pick but while iron pyrite may have a similar look to gold you can’t make the same things with it. Gold is an extremely malleable metal with a melting point that can be achieved with regular fire. Iron pyrite on the other hand is extremely hard and if you melt it the sulfur will separate out of the iron and you’re left with plain old iron.

Your economic argument is as bad as your metallurgy because you are unaware of the historical reasons behind it. Arranged marriages was often far more about politics than about childbearing. Using marriage and the resulting children to cement alliances was extremely common especially in feudal societies. It’s no coincidence that the beginning of the breakdown of the patriarchal system in our society was at the beginning of the Industrial revolution and the birth of modern capitalism.

Well, economics often gets it wrong because most of the models, as you say were based around scarcity. But when scarcity changes to surplus, things act in very different ways to the same input.

For a very good example of this look at the effects of productivity gains in terms of labor scarcity vs. labor surplus. In a labor/good scarce environment (full employment/shortages of goods) increased productivity will allow firms to make more money, and allow wages to increase while the entire operation still is profitable.

In a labor/good surplus environment, increased productivity will allow employers to employ less, forcing down wages, as they don’t need to increase production, as the amount that they sell is independent from production (as they’re in a surplus).

Same input, two entirely different reactions.

Now, the caveat to the above is that producers could cut prices and as such sell more, increasing the requirement for labor. Where that falls flat is inequality..and I’m not even talking about the 1% type of inequality. I’m talking middle class/lower class inequality. Something can be more profitable by selling it to only the middle/lower upper class at a higher price than producing more of it and selling it to everybody. This is basically breaking economics as a whole.

So, GWW expresses her concerns and suspicions about being potentially doxxed by a false DMCA clain, and you, Cristina, treat it with contempt.

GWW expresses fears for the safety of herself and her family, and again, you treat those fears with contempt.

*consults FTB operating manual*

Ah yes: sorry, but you don’t get to decide what GWW finds threatening. Neither do you get to decide what her subsequent concerns and reactions should be in the light of her feeling threatened. Seems very close to ‘victim blaming’ to me.

Wow. Some women really will go a long ways to be liked by sexist men. *shakes head*

As for GWW’s assertions about single parents, I think it really depends on how much support the single parent has. When my mother was divorced, she had help from her sister, her parents, and my dad was supportive when it came to raising me. Plus my mother really cared about how well I did.

GWW will be yet another YouTube blog I will avoid. Lift is too short to waste it listening to her.

Sexual harassment? What name so? We need hard evidence and lots of it before we take you seriously. Since you don’t have hard proof that this guy assaulted you….you are clearly an overreacting feminazi!
Yet this person fabricates a could be scenario and she is a victim? Unless you post videos, most youtubers don’t know the ins and outs of filing claims. It was more than likely just some assholes being assholes. Nobody is harassing her family or going after her that we know of. That is one possible reason I suppose but there is nothing pointing towards that. It just happens to be the most dramatic assumption one could draw.
The mental gymnastics required to think like this should win a gold medal.

Sorry Brandi, but – *consults FTB handbook once more* – you don’t get to decide if GWW feels threatened; that’s up to her. You don’t get to decide if she’s justified in feeling concerned for her family. Again, that’s up to her.

True, the people who filed the claims may have had less malevolent intentions. But as you ought to know, intent isn’t magic.

No Brandi, I did indeed read your comment, but as I had mentioned nothing about sexual harassment, I assumed that part was meant for someone else. I’m more concerned at the moment with others deciding on how GWW should feel about the harassment she recently received.

Plus, I never said she can’t feel however she wants to feel. What does it matter to me?

What I am boggled by is the rationale of these self acclaimed rational people. If ftb is a hivemind because they typically agree on social justice issues and *gasp* stand up for their colleagues and friends, then what does that make the other side? This is a woman that had some claims filed on her videos. That happens millions of times a day on YT. Instead of waiting to see what actually happened , she invented a scenario that is the absolute most dramatic option and no doubt the totally not hive-minded folks will have her back. There is no evidence of anything whatsoever but I would bet there is a storm of assholes barking about the injustice of it all – based on an imagined scenario.

So – getting DMCA claims and immediately deciding that someone from FTB or a fan is to blame. Not only to blame but they were doing it to get docs. Not only do they want these docs but they want them to spread all over the internet and they will use them to harass her family etc. and so forth. All based on pure speculation and not a damn thing else. I haven’t and won’t read the comments on her stuff but I will assume, and correct me if I’m wrong, that a fair share of the “ftbullies” folks will back her up without any evidence. They will do that and not think of that as “hive” mentality.

Then on the other hand we have a blogger who was fired from the blogs here. Snuck back on , knowing full well that he wasn’t welcome and what he was doing was wrong. Did in fact copy a ton of information and sent some along to other people as well as releasing bits and pieces that would make him look like the victim, and of course nothing that would make him look bad I’m sure. That information that he had included names of people who blog under nyms and ….you know the story, I’m sure.
This was not an imagined thing, it did happen and there is evidence for it. They did not dream it up as a worst case scenario, it actually happened.
Yet when people got upset about this they were mocked and they were overreacting. The other side jumped to the defense of the person who was obviously in the wrong.

It basically just blows my mind that people can act like such blatant hypocrites. Even further they will do these things and act like the people on the other side of the fence are a hive
mind under control of uber bloggers or whatever it is they think.

I am not great at getting my point across most of the time, so I do apologize if that isn’t the best description ever. I can’t be the only one who looks at these and various other instances that have happened lately and see that many people have chosen a side and facts and evidence don’t actually matter to them unless they disagree with you, then you are obviously overreacting until you can “prove it”.

Though you state that you never said GWW can’t feel how she wants to feel, you do certainly appear to be making a case that her feelings were unjustified in this matter – and therefore claiming, in effect, that GWW should not be feeling as she does, and should not have these concerns about the safety of herself or her family.

Again, you do not get to decide on whether or not GWW should feel threatened in this matter.

Because the first thing you think when you receive a DMCA is “they’re coming for my family!”. Whereas it’s a gross overreaction to be threatened by overly-specific emails expressing concerns for your safety, or upset over obviously insulting t-shirts and jewelry.

I see. So in your estimation, a woman saying ‘this has made me concerned for the safety of myself and my family’ can be blithely dismissed because it doesn’t accord with what you would consider a reasonable justification for such fears.

So where were you when Rebecca Watson posted examples of ACTUAL rape threats the other day? Oh yeah, you were hoggling away in the Slyme pit dismissing or justifying them all. Her rape threats CLEARLY aren’t real rape threats, HER harassment clearly doesn’t count, because you say said so!
So much for:

“I see. So in your estimation, a woman saying ‘this has made me concerned for the safety of myself and my family’ can be blithely dismissed because it doesn’t accord with what you would consider a reasonable justification for such fears.”

Fuck off, Tigzy, anyone with two seconds spare to google can see what you’re really about.

I think tigzy is showing us all just how effective GWW’s manipulative language has been, at least to those stupid enough to fall for it. Anyone who remembers junior high school knows full well that it’s a common trait of bullies to adopt the language of their victims, in order to divert sympathy their direction. So GWW makes a video talking about getting three DMCA notices on YouTube (which, as Criss points out, loads of people get, as YouTube is apparently eager to hand those out like candy), and, over the course of several minutes, constructs a bizarre scenario that evolves from possible doxxing threat to “my family is in imminent danger!” It’s all very Glenn Beck/Alex Jones.

Obediently, tigzy watches it, decides that the scenario GWW has constructed out of whole cloth is equivalent in its threatening nature to the actual, direct, and explicitly detailed threats of rape and murder that Rebecca and other skepchicks have been emailed, and runs over here thinking, haha!, I can catch the FtB’ers in some mad hypocrisy!

The idiocy of it is stunning, but that’s what GWW relies on to boost that Paypal balance, I suppose.

tigzy:
No one is deciding how GWW should feel.
What people are trying to point out to you is that her response to getting DMCA’d 3 times isn’t rational. Nor is it consistent. She started off worrying about a doxxing threat and quickly changes that to “I’m worried about my family.”
How did her worries evolve?
Why did her worries evolve?
Is her fear about her family actually justified (can a DMCA warning to take down your videos somehow wind up as a threat to her family? If there is a way, she did NOT explain HOW)?
Why does she mention the ‘possibility’ that it was someone at FtB or Skepchick?
Are there any other possibilities?
Does she have proof?
Or does she just suspicions?
Are they suspicions based on evidence?
Or are they suspicions based on her dislike of FtB or Skepchick?
If she has no evidence, why does she mention FtB or Skepchick at all?

I think that, considering the movements at large( the feminist and the mra/mrm/whatever acronym they use), both sides have good points and not so good points, extremists and reasonables.

I really hope you’ve taken the time to understand the views of feminists and men’s rights activists, given this pile of crap you just uttered.
Wait, scratch that.
A rational approach to both philosophies would not lead one to the pile of crap you uttered.
(in case you can’t figure it out, I am a man who does not in any way support the ridiculous assertions and vile attitudes found in the ‘mens rights movement’)

I think some people get the notion that because the MRM occasionally expresses concern over male victims of domestic violence and sexual assault that they actually care about those things. However a movement that ACTUALLY cared about these things would be raising money for shelters for men and campaigning against prison rape but they aren’t doing that (I applaud those groups that are, but they aren’t run by MRAs). Instead the MRAs use those problems to argue in favor of beating and raping women. Instead of wanting to improve things for men they want to make things worse for women which is not what a movement that actually cares about male victims does. It’s the abusers lobby.

Both atheists and feminist groups have several fundraisers every year for various causes which they support. Please show me one fundraiser this year that was put on by an MRA group. And no, trying to latch on to Father’s Rights groups won’t cut it.

That is not what I asked.
If I fail to raise money am I no longer a feminist?
If a women hating MRA raises money is he now in the clear?
And why won’t a fathers rights group cut it? Do they not count as wanting equality for men or something?

I do think the MRA movment is full of people who just really don’t like feminists and use it as a cover, I even suspect many MRA’s were made just for that goal…. I don’t really care however.

I support equal rights for men and women and I don’t give a flying fuck about “us vs them”. If you make a bad argument then its a bad argument, if you make a good one then it is a good one… I don’t really care who makes it.

No, to be honest, I haven’t taken the time. I called it as I saw it, judging from very superficial impressions about individuals. I don’t really know much about mra/mrm or however they call themselves. But I’ll certainly be doing some research on them.

Cristina:
Having just watched the video-Wow. I often get bored listening to speakers, but that was not the case here (at least when you were speaking that is; GWW was noooooooooot quite as interesting…she was a bit too calculated). Though this was a serious topic of discussion, I laughed out loud several times. You managed to mix humor with your frustration to great effect.
As for GWW, one of my burning questions is how she thinks her family could be targeted. It makes *no* sense.
Seeing as she defends domestic violence the answer is probably something my mind wouldn’t be able to comprehend.

Certainly an interesting video for many reasons and you make many very good points and many will no doubt sympathize with your comments about all of the drama over this and related issues. And I rather like the closing clip of John the Other which at least raises the question of to what extent GWW might be “banging on the bongo-drum of ‘look, how much of a victim I am’” – “Drums Along the Mohawk”.

But, having let that cat out of the bag, maybe we can all agree that at least some on each side of this “drama” tend to over-play the “victim card”. Seems to me that feelings don’t always give a true representation of reality; part of our criticisms of the religious if I’m not mistaken: the feelings are certainly real enough but their correspondence to objective reality is anything but a foregone conclusion. Maybe, like good skeptics, we should all be asking for evidence and be prepared to provide it on request – and without reacting frequently with the shedding of copious quantities of crocodile tears and with charges of “troll!” and the like ….

And, speaking of evidence, while I very much question many of GWW’s arguments since many of them appear to be, as you suggest, largely speculations based on a liberal use of a crystal ball, that doesn’t appear to be the case for all of them. For instance, while the following links provide some evidence in support of the argument that the differential prevalence of “gendered roles” may have contributed to the fall of the Neaderthals and the rise of homo sapiens, they also show that that is only one possibility among several, agriculture likely to have been a major one: Wikipedia; Science Daily. In addition I would say, have said, that considering the prevalence of such roles even in lower primates, it is a bit of a stretch to argue that that wouldn’t still have been the case even with the Neanderthals.

Although, in passing, while you credibly use hypotheticals in some cases – “looks” deliberate as hell [8:49] – one might also argue that you too are apparently “guilty” of periodically relying overmuch on a crystal ball: shameless manipulation [5:14]

However, my primary criticism of your video is based on your comments about my own comment [5:22] about the difference between “may” and “must”, apropos of which is this salient definition of the latter:

v.,v.aux.
5. a. Used to indicate inevitability or certainty: We all must die.
b. Used to indicate logical probability or presumptive certainty: If the lights were on, they must have been at home.

So while I will concede that, as you suggested in this video, your characterization of GWW’s argument in the previous video – the FreeThoughtSkepchickBlog (??) must be responsible for GirlWritesWhat getting DMCA-ed – and the use of “must” in it is certainly consistent with the second definition (5b), I might be so bold as to suggest that that argument is rather disingenuous to say the least. Seems to me that if you really intended “presumptive certainty” then you would have had no need for that statement in the first place since that since that “presumptive certainty” is essentially the relevant defintion of the word “may” which GWW actually used. Really not cricket – or wise – to change one’s horses in midstream, or one’s definitions in mid-argument.

No, to be honest, I haven’t taken the time. I called it as I saw it, judging from very superficial impressions about individuals. I don’t really know much about mra/mrm or however they call themselves. But I’ll certainly be doing some research on them.

{The following is advice based on some of my experiences. I mean no offense with any of my suggestions.}

In my experience online, especially here at FtB, I’ve found that learning about a topic enables me to speak about it with _some_ degree of knowledge. Many of the bloggers and commenters at FtB value accurate knowledge so you can often find citations to information that is presented. Many times, stated opinions are backed up with links to studies to provide evidence for a particular position. That doesn’t mean a commenter has arrived at the correct conclusion (nor does it mean that the material one reads comes from a respectable source). It just shows that you’ve made an attempt to understand the opinion you have and are trying to show that said opinion is backed up with some sort of evidence.
For instance, I’m not the most political person, so I used to avoid political discussions. I’ve been educating myself more and more over the past year because there are times I’d like to participate in conversations, but I don’t want to speak from ignorance. I’ve been dipping my toe into political discussions about specific topics that I have read about. That doesn’t mean I won’t say something stupid (I have and I’m sure I will again in the future). It just means I’m making the attempt to be informed about the subject I’m trying to talk about. I’ve also found that many people are willing to engage a commenter if it’s apparent they’ve made *some* attempt to inform themselves, even if they don’t have the right information (although continued insistence that an individual is right, especially in the face of strong evidence to the contrary, often results in people getting pissed off and dropping politeness)

****
WRT to learning about Mens Rights Activists, obviously Google can be your friend.
I’ve found that dropping into The Lounge* (in Pharyngula) and politely asking for a link or two can be effective (that said, no one is obligated to provide assistance). I can think of more than a few people there who are almost always willing to provide links for people to follow. Many people like to read Pharyngula posts, but not respond. For several months, I did that. For me, it was a case of feeling the place out and trying to determine what was acceptable and what wasn’t. On almost a daily basis, I found that people would provide links to stories or studies or facts. I’ve learned so much stuff since I’ve started reading the blogs at FtB (in fact, I’ve come to realize there’s a metric ton of stuff that I *don’t* know).

*The Lounge is a continuous thread for *all topics*, so if you ask a question there, you won’t diverge a thread. I’ve found many bloggers prefer commenters to stay on topic when they respond. In fact, my response to you is probably an example of thread drift.

I like how at 10:18-10:22 (of this video, I don’t know where it is in the original), GWW clearly recognizes that publishing somebody’s personal information, without doing any harassment oneself, is dangerous and itself an attack. It’s nice to see that admitted for a change by the anti-FtB folks.

That is not what I asked.
If I fail to raise money am I no longer a feminist?
If a women hating MRA raises money is he now in the clear?
And why won’t a fathers rights group cut it? Do they not count as wanting equality for men or something?

You missed a key sentence in Noadi’s comment:

I think some people get the notion that because the MRM occasionally expresses concern over male victims of domestic violence and sexual assault that they actually care about those things. However a movement that ACTUALLY cared about these things would be raising money for shelters for men and campaigning against prison rape but they aren’t doing that (I applaud those groups that are, but they aren’t run by MRAs). Instead the MRAs use those problems to argue in favor of beating and raping women. Instead of wanting to improve things for men they want to make things worse for women which is not what a movement that actually cares about male victims does. It’s the abusers lobby.

[emphasis mine]
The point xe makes here is that if the Men’s Rights Movement cared about men’s rights-in the way that the Feminist Movement cares about women’s rights-they would do more than talk. They would raise money for men’s shelters or campaign against prison rape (and I believe these are examples; obviously anything substantial that goes beyond expressing concern about male victims of sexual assault would count).
Xe wasn’t talking about an individual MRA, but an organization. Feminist organizations show they care about women’s issues when they raise money for breast cancer research or help build shelter’s for women. That shows an actual commitment to women’s rights.
By contrast, the Men’s Right’s Movement has done…what exactly (other than talk)?
****
No, whether or not YOU raise money doesn’t mean you are/aren’t a feminist. But if a Feminist organization didn’t raise money or did nothing more than talk about how they’re for women’s rights, one would be right to question how much they actually care for that cause.

You are the best thing about FtB. Both of the polar extremes in this shitstorm have been immovable in opinion and incapable of admitting the other side has any decent thoughts at all. Its been boiled down to “we are right and you are wrong” from both sides. Its been an embarrassment to the skeptical community. Thank you for continuing to be you, for posting the best skeptical/athiest blogs on the internet, and for staying above the ridiculousness while still sharing your ideas about it.

Cristina, aren’t you ashamed and embarassed to be associated with FTB? Don’t you feel like you’ve made a huge mistake by choosing to ally yourself with these small-minded charlatans? Come to your senses! Do the right thing and renounce FTB and Atheism+. Stop being a useful idiot for these fools!

The second part of the video is gold. It’s curious how to men’s rights people, the patriarchy simultaneously doesn’t exist and works beautifully to improve the human race’s chances of survival. Make up your minds!

Ana, that’s horrible. I wouldn’t worry about hell so much. It’s a near certainty that it’s a complete fabrication. A story to scare children into obedience. Worry about being a good person instead. Don’t obey those who make empty threats about things they couldn’t possibly know. And it’s good to see you reaching out. There are a lot of good online communities you can join to discuss these things with you.

Hi Cristina! Count me as a new fan. In fact I just linked one of your videos on Islam to my friend Lubos Motl’s blog. Anyway, here are three positive things to say about God and the Bible which even an atheist — maybe only an atheist? — could love:

I can’t agree with much that you have to say here. I usually agree with nearly 100% in your typical videos. You probably have receieved some shocking hate mail in your time but I bet GWW is getting 20x as much as you have ever had. There would be Feminists out there who would personally love to rip out her throat and shove it in her mouth. GWW may infact have her own sources of information that you are not privy to. Give her a break and go back to attacking institutions, philosophies and systems that do harm to people. FtB’s has almost reached its use by date…time to jump ship Christina – you are too good to be hanging around here.

Hello, Neat post. There is a problem together with your website in internet explorer, may check this? IE nonetheless is the market chief and a large component to other folks will pass over your magnificent writing because of this problem.

Thanks for discussing your ideas here. The other element is that any time a problem occurs with a laptop motherboard, persons should not go ahead and take risk regarding repairing it themselves for if it is not done properly it can lead to irreparable damage to the entire laptop. In most cases, it is safe just to approach a dealer of a laptop for your repair of the motherboard. They will have technicians who definitely have an knowledge in dealing with notebook computer motherboard difficulties and can carry out the right diagnosis and perform repairs.

In response to her suspicion that the DMCA claims were for the purposes of dox-ing, I would point out that it is understandable, because some people associated with groups such as this one. DO have a history of doxing.

That is not something she just pulled out of her ass.

As to worrying worrying that someone could dox her and then harass her, her employer, or even her family is not altogether unwarranted since it has been attempted numerous times, especially with regard to atheist bloggers/vloggers who are critical of certain feminist/skeptic figures. There has been a history of doxing and then slandering the dissenters; she can understandably be worried about this and feel violated over it.

Lets not ignore the fact that the DMCA claims against her were undeniably bogus; and appear to be the effort of at least two people. That implies that two people discussed taking this action first, and then took that action. This type of action fits the modus opperandi of two specific individuals well known in FTB/A+ communities. So while it is true that she was jumping to conclusions, there was a credible reason for suspicion on her part.

She may have been over-reacting, and upset; but her worries about doxing were not without cause. So she had reason to be scared. I also would point out that her response was mostly defiant, and declared her refusal to be made a victim, rather than crying for sympathy over any perceived victimhood.

As to your reference to anthropologists speaking of the advent of ‘patriarchal’ society, I’m going to call bullshit on that. The evidence of gendered division of labor is ancient (pre-agricultural) homo sapiens. This is the consensus or most anthropologists. Ancient, pre-agrarian societies were (probably mostly) egalitarian; in that there were no kings or nobles, rich or poor. But women were the gatherers and men were the hunters. There was limited crossover, but this was the norm. Why? Well that goes into the realm of speculation, but the evidence shows an ancient basis for different division of labor based on gender.

Second…anthropologists don’t often speak of ‘patriarchy’. It is primarily an evidence-based science, and not an identity-based study; Anthropology sometimes has crossover with identity-based studies, but this is also frequently avoided for various reasons. A significant distinction is that empirical and rational sciences do not base their assertions on an unsupportable supposition.

There is reason to believe that political power, when it came to exist, was in the hands of men. But even then, women were the masters of the house. in many societies, in fact, women owned the house and the land and had control over it; The ability of a woman to unilaterally divorce a man and kick him out of the house is not a recent development. Even while men had most political offices and were responsible for the act of creating laws and then enforcing them, it is disingenuous to call this system “patriarchy” when in fact it takes two to tango and women did a large portion of the dancing.

I want to add that, in the links to the articles you mention, you include works by an historian, a psychologist, and a fairly noted feminist writer and psychologist. All fairly well-respected people, but none of them actually scientists.

I really like your writing style, good information, thank you for putting up mytechnwp-includesimagessmiliesicon_biggrin” . ¡°Your central self is totally untouched By grief, confusion, desperation.¡± by Vernon Howard.

Attack…counter-attack. Reciprocal insinuation of motive. Your initial instinct to refrain and remain, restingly, rooted in the truth, would have been the wiser. Anxiety induces apophenia and eclipses the light. Thank you for shining.

What i do not realize is actually how you’re now not really a lot more well-favored than you might be right now.
You are so intelligent. You recognize thus considerably on the subject of this
subject, made me for my part imagine it from numerous numerous angles.
Its like women and men are not involved except it
is something to do with Woman gaga! Your personal stuffs excellent.